One
thing that I have learned over time is that people are very passionate about
their belief in the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved/ Eternal Security. To
many it is much more than just another doctrine, it is the Gospel itself! I can
understand how people connect the doctrines they believe into a package and see
them as all relating to the Gospel, but I must admit that I was somewhat shocked
to hear how adamant some people were about the issue. Even Charles Stanley
states this as being the case by saying, "The very
gospel comes under attack when the eternal security of the believer is
questioned." This would explain his incessant references to this
doctrine in nearly every sermon that he preaches. I would too if I believed that
the doctrine of Eternal Security was the very Gospel of Christ! I understand his
passion, but not the rationality of his connection.

Others
have stated the case even more strongly. They follow the idea of the
"gospel" equivalent to its logical end, they say, "
If
you do not believe that once a person is saved he is always saved, then you have
NEVER really trusted in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
you are lost in your sins, and you are heading straight to Hell," and
another way it is frequently stated is, "Eternal
Security is the Gospel!" It
was quite enlightening for me to see the depth in which some people take this! I
never knew that there were some people that believed in unconditional security
that considered anyone that was not in agreement with them as hopelessly doomed
to an eternal hell! I have always taken a strong stance on the issue since the
truth of the matter was revealed to me from the Scriptures. This of course had
brought me into disagreement with many of my Christian friends, but as far as I
know, they did not question the validity of my faith in Christ anymore than I
would have questioned theirs. Once Saved Always Saved ( OSAS ), is without a
doubt a dangerous doctrine if it is followed to its logical end. I see the
belief in this doctrine as hazardous, but not fatal to one's salvation if they
are not using it for justifying living in sin. The real danger comes in the form
of living in sin and using the excuse of Eternal Security to justify it. Some go
down this primrose path because of the inevitable conclusion of OSAS is that
they are still in grace regardless of how much open rebellion they wallow in.
This is known as license or antinomianism. People can disagree with me on the
issue of the doctrine of Eternal Security and I still consider them to be truly
Christians. I know of several Christians that believe OSAS and are examples of
faith and holiness that continue to challenge both myself and others. Their
doctrine is not a stumbling block to them as it has been to others. Thank God
that not all believers in Eternal Security are as void of grace towards others
as Charles Stanley and the originators of these other quotes are! Sure, no
matter what position a Christian takes on the matter, it is an important issue
for them. I believe there is room for these differences within Christendom. Not
all issues are candidates for driving a wedge between Christians to the point of
calling each other unbelievers!

I
know that many may be wondering why I would make such a harsh accusation that
many teachers of OSAS are void of grace in this matter. I do not state it to
defame anybody, but to make an observation. Many may deny that saying that "Eternal
Security is the gospel"
means that they relegate all dissenters from their doctrine as being on their
way to an eternal hell. Some may boldly state the way they feel about the matter
and overtly say that anyone who does not believe in Once Saved Always Saved is
hopelessly on their way to hell. There are also those that arrive at the point,
but do so more subtly, and state their case through innuendo or implication. If
Eternal security is the Gospel, then surely, to deny the doctrine
is to miss the Gospel. This is certainly a serious charge! I hope that the
reader is beginning to see some of the problem of making this doctrine the
"gospel." Is the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved really the very
"good news" that all of our salvation hinges upon? The problems with
teaching OSAS in this manner has multiple consequences. First, it replaces the
object of our faith for salvation by putting it in a doctrine, and not in the
person and work of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it asks someone to put faith into a
well meaning, but unscriptural doctrine as essential to the salvation of our
souls. If it were true as these people dogmatically state or imply, then we must
ask as to why the Scriptures never seem to see this mysterious connection of
salvation to some belief concerning irrevocable salvation. It also ignores the
fact that if this is the Gospel, then why was God so secretive
about it in His revelation to us? For the "Good News" to be any
"news" at all, it must be plain and evident. Otherwise, we are bound
up in seeking salvation through some special Gnosis instead of the plainly
revealed message concerning Christ.

What
are we then to do with all of Church history? Are we to say that some of the
greatest evangelists of all time were never really saved because they denied
this doctrine? What of John and Charles Wesley? With all of the "Once Saved
Always Saved" people around, why would God use these men so powerfully when
He could have used "believers"? How do we explain the fact that the
Early Church knew nothing of such a doctrine? How do we explain the consistency
of First century believers in the denial of Eternal Security, and the strange
absence of any doctrinal witness to validate the belief of OSAS in the Early
Church? What we do see is the abrupt doctrinal shift away from
Scriptural Christianity as occurring at a singular focal point, which was the
introduction of fatalistic Manichaeanism into Christian thought by Augustine. Is
it any surprise to see the modern descendents of this doctrinal heritage making
the doctrines of Calvinism, and the acceptance thereof, as being the
"gospel" itself, and essential to salvation? It is a strange and
inconsistent doctrine indeed that believes in fatalistic predestination, yet
doubts or denies the salvation of those who disagree with their doctrine. If we
are predestined by fatalistic decree, how could anything we believe have any
impact on our salvation at all? You would be predestined to heaven or hell
regardless of what you believed if such a doctrine were true. Does belief in
fatalism, predestination, or Eternal Security replace the atonement of Christ,
or the Gospel message? When we hinge our faith and belief on anything but Christ
for salvation, we have truly created a substitute for grace!

How
then is OSAS a substitute for grace? Grace by definition is "unmerited
favor." It is God reaching out to offer that which we do not deserve. It
cannot be earned, and it cannot be merited. The passage, "For
by grace are ye saved through faith",
contains two main elements,
grace and faith. Salvation comes through God's unmerited gift to us. It
is obtained upon the condition of faith. The "Good News" is
grace; it is the Gospel. To say that OSAS is the
Gospel is to replace grace as the Gospel. We are forever told by Scripture to
cast our faith entirely on the work of Christ on our behalf; the atonement of
Christ, God's unmerited favor; grace! Predestination, fatalism,
Eternal Security, or Once Saved Always Saved may be what some are putting their
faith in for salvation, but it is not grace! The
object of our faith is to be in the work of Christ, and never in any personal
merit or doctrine!

"But", you say, "I
believe that it is all of grace, and I still believe in Eternal Security."
That my friend is fine as long as you do not teach that one is lost over their
denial of Once Saved Always Saved. Once you make acceptance of this doctrine a
condition, you have exceeded grace and have created a "gospel" of your
own. There are many who believe in Eternal Security that do not use it as an
occasion for stumbling. There are many who do not exclude those that do not
believe in OSAS as genuine believers. They do this because they truly grasp the
meaning of grace. But there are many out there who equate OSAS with the Gospel
of Christ. My concern is not with their condemnation of believers in conditional
security, for I am secure in my relationship with Christ. I can be secure, for
my faith does not reside in a doctrine, but in Christ. My concern is for those
who have misplaced the focus of their faith; the ones who are banking on Eternal
Security to get them to heaven, and not Christ. I also wish to remove a wedge
that unnecessarily comes between Christians, while at the same time allowing
room for healthy doctrinal debate.